On Monday 16 May 2005 12:35, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Shlomi, if you want to do things because you want to do them, go ahead. > I don't have time for these long pointless threads. None of the points > you raise, except the "non free" one, make any sense at all.
Why do they? Habeas Corpus. > > Shlomi Fish wrote: > >For other anti-qmail discussion see: > > > >http://perl.org.il/pipermail/perl/2004-October/005989.html > > That's not an anti qmail discussion. this is you saying you don't like > qmail, and other people disagreeing with you. Actually, it was one people who disagreed with me - Yuval Ya'ari. > > >http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.72853.10 > > This is you linking to the the previous. Shlomi, this is called "Trolling". > And other people agreeing with me. I was raising a discussion regarding what Joel said. > Yesterday you talked to me about this. You said qmail had a security > hole - it didn't. You said ezmlm-idx could not do subscription moderated > lists. When asked which was more likely, that you missed the option, or > that I misremember doing it, you just repeated the claim. Well, rules of > argument state that when one states something is impossible, and another > state that it is possible, the burden of proof is on the later. As the > burden of proof is on me, I hereby give you the following passage from > the man page for ezmlm-make from the ezmlm-idx package inside Debian Woody: > -s Subscription moderation. ezmlm-make enables subscription > moderation by touching dir/modsub. This affects subscriptions > for both the main list and the digest list. See the -m > option on how moderator addresses are stored and manipulated. Actually that's not what I was after. I wanted prohibited subscription. That no one can subscribe or unsubscribe except manually using ezmlm-sub/ezmlm-unsub. > > As for some of the other times my name was brought up on this thread: > >C. people are used to it just being there. working the way it does. > > > > > > > > > >That would be me, Tzafrir and Shachar. I know qmail more than I do > > postfix, > > Well, I don't know postfix. The little I do know shows me that it's > virtual domains support isn't nearly as good as qmail's, but this is not > very relevant to us, as we are not heavy virtual domains users. Still, > there is *NO* technical reason to replace it. > > If you do replace to postfix, I will probably not help with > administrating it. Very well. > > Omer said: > >We do need a volunteer to maintain a clone of the server machine - with > >exactly the same versions of build tools, Perl interpreter, libraries, > >etc. The clone will be used for building any software needed for the real > >server. > > I have such a system, inside a vmware virtual machine, used for > precisely this. That is how I maintain my servers. Well, it's too difficult for me. I don't have a vmware license. And it just complicates matters too much, and doesn't add to the security. Someone who gained shell access can easily install a build system on the server. > > Shlomi again, said: > >Ori Idan had told me about what Shachar did to beak. It's a system full of > >scripts, a chroot-jail and a Debian Woody-that isn't quite Debian. They'd > >like to re-install it. I'm not going there. Eskimo's configuration will > >remain pretty much standard. > > Quoting like that is both not fair AND mean. I cannot defend this > configuration, as Ori is not here (hint, for the socially inept - this > is a time for an apology). > > Beak was set up with the knowledge of it keeping Hamakor's members > personal details on it. It was hardened accordingly. It was pure Woody > (the machine had about two non-woody packages on it, all told). It was > set up with a minimal installation (which included no compiler, true), > and with chroots. As a result, it was not friendly to the people logging > in to it. Personally, I don't see it as a problem. I don't think that a > production server should be a machine people would be encouraged to play > around with. Other people disagree. That's their right. > > The scripts Ori mentions are there to prevent the configuration from > breaking, rather than to keep it running. When the way the board managed > requests caused me to resign from the post sysadmin, I set down with the > replacement they found (Nadav Mavor) and explained the setup. It may > well be that Nadav found the setup hard to keep around, and wanted to > change things. I cannot attest to what the current situation there is, > as I don't know. Nadav, BTW, told me that the security of beak is bad, and that things keep breaking there, and people keep having to restart them. Regards, Shlomi Fish --------------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/ 95% of the programmers consider 95% of the code they did not write, in the bottom 5%.
